Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#111

Post by andylynch »

reader_1000 wrote: post #108

Are mRNA vaccines safer than traditional ones? In the long run, which one will have less side effects? As far as I know, Both US and Europe are only going with mRNA vaccines for COVID. Is it intentional or just because there is no traditional vaccine that completed Phase III trials?

The latter. Many countries have bought a mix of both, the advantage of mRNA tech was always its adaptability hence why these are coming out first. Oxford vaccine is reported likely to be approved for use in UK in less than two weeks’ time, for roll out first week of Jan

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#112

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #86
finolex1 wrote: post #59

Anyone knows why they insist on both doses given the limited supply of the vaccine and the marginal increase in effectiveness with the second dose? I would imagine every single day counts. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Rvzdi8RS9Bda5aLt2/covid-12-1...

They played it save when designing the protocol. Better to err on that side, than to risk failure because you chose a dose that's too low. Given that's what they trialled, there really isn't a mechanism that would allow either them or the FDA to change the protocol from what was tested. Yes, this is annoying. You can make that educated guess and not show up for your second shot and you'll probably help someone. But m…

There is a lot of real evidence that masks do work

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#113

Post by jfoster »

cm2187 wrote: post #92
tyre wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked article[0]: “Yes, Moderna’s vaccine prevents transmission. One dose is good for reducing infection by 63%, two by over 90%.” The number of people you need to vaccinate with a 63% effective vaccine versus a 90% effective vaccine is a huge gap. There are two issues with vaccines that staring at these numbers won’t tell you: 1. Not everyone is going to get vaccinated. 2. The number of people who will get…

Also the “I don’t trust a vaccine approved by the Trump administration” crowd. It was hugely irresponsible to politicise the vaccine.

I'm not American so I could be way off on this, but I can't help but wonder if the politicization might've actually helped in this case? My big assumption is that Trump supporters would normally be more skeptical of vaccines. If non-supporters would trust the vaccine regardless, then perhaps politicizing it just means that more Trump supporters would also take it?

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#114

Post by sverhagen »

cm2187 wrote: post #92
tyre wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked article[0]: “Yes, Moderna’s vaccine prevents transmission. One dose is good for reducing infection by 63%, two by over 90%.” The number of people you need to vaccinate with a 63% effective vaccine versus a 90% effective vaccine is a huge gap. There are two issues with vaccines that staring at these numbers won’t tell you: 1. Not everyone is going to get vaccinated. 2. The number of people who will get…

Also the “I don’t trust a vaccine approved by the Trump administration” crowd. It was hugely irresponsible to politicise the vaccine.

This will be overcome. It was about trusting the scientists instead of the White House. I'm fine with it now. But didn't they pressure that CDC director to approve it that day or get fired? They were probably going to approve already. But what if they weren't far enough along and some of this nonsense would've played out like that? It'd have been very harmful for the trust in the vaccine.

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#115

Post by giantDinosaur »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #112
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They played it save when designing the protocol. Better to err on that side, than to risk failure because you chose a dose that's too low. Given that's what they trialled, there really isn't a mechanism that would allow either them or the FDA to change the protocol from what was tested. Yes, this is annoying. You can make that educated guess and not show up for your second shot and you'll probably help someone. But m…

There is a lot of real evidence that masks do work https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

My impression is that the consensus is reasonably strong that masks work in and of themselves, that is - they do act as a physical barrier against transmission, but, most infections are happening at e.g. family gatherings and in households, so the actual effects of masks writ large are more muted than proponents argue. Basically, it's like saying seat-belts work, which is obviously very true, but regarding them in a kind of isolation that forgets about setting speed limits.

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#116

Post by blackbear_ »

avocad wrote: post #91

Does anyone know how they manage to produce complex microstructures like that, RNA inside a lipid capsule, on such a large scale? Does these vaccines need an adjuvant to work, or is the change to the affected cells large enough to trigger an immune reaction?

This article [1] has a section with several references on that, with the most used technique [2] being depicted in fig. 3 (this is from 2016 so there might be a more recent technique around now).

The basic principle is to mix a solution with lipids and one with the mRNA and pump it through a channel with herringbone-shaped incisions that generate turbulence in the fluid. Apparently, the turbulence makes lipids surround the mRNA and stick together to form the nano-particle.

[1] http://www.future-science.com/doi/10.4155/tde-2016-0006

[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5555/647.full

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#117

Post by skocznymroczny »

cm2187 wrote: post #92
tyre wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked article[0]: “Yes, Moderna’s vaccine prevents transmission. One dose is good for reducing infection by 63%, two by over 90%.” The number of people you need to vaccinate with a 63% effective vaccine versus a 90% effective vaccine is a huge gap. There are two issues with vaccines that staring at these numbers won’t tell you: 1. Not everyone is going to get vaccinated. 2. The number of people who will get…

Also the “I don’t trust a vaccine approved by the Trump administration” crowd. It was hugely irresponsible to politicise the vaccine.

Also the "don't trust big pharma crowd", but apparently big pharma is the best thing ever this year.

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#118

Post by bsaul »

i'm surprised absolutely noone here talks about the fact that we have absolutely no idea what the long term consequences of this new tech are.

We've all seen people advocating new wonderful technological solutions that fail because of unknown unknowns, in every field. That's just the rules of the R&D game.

In that case we're seriously thinking about injecting a new kind of drug to the whole world population based on a couple of short term trials, for a desease that is only lethal for far less than 1 percent of the population ( and in general, only the most fragile 1 percent).

I'm just like everyone and i find this new arn cell transcription machinery hacking absolutely insanely great. And i also think it looks safe from what the expert are explaining.

But is it safe enough to have it taken by everyone in the world ??

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#119

Post by tkinom »

reader_1000 wrote: post #108

Are mRNA vaccines safer than traditional ones? In the long run, which one will have less side effects? As far as I know, Both US and Europe are only going with mRNA vaccines for COVID. Is it intentional or just because there is no traditional vaccine that completed Phase III trials?

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0C5tFHze8 can answer yours and a lot of other questions about mRNA:

Professor Shane Crotty, PhD answers a series of COVID 19 vaccine questions including what are the chances of long-term side effects? How safe is RNA vaccine (i.e. Pfizer / BioNTech an Moderna Vaccines) technology? How long does mRNA from a vaccine stay in our cells? What else goes in vaccines? How long does immunity last? Why are T-Cells so important? Why does Pfizer's vaccine need to stay SO cold?

Re: FDA grants authorization to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine

#120

Post by _Microft »

bsaul wrote: post #118

i'm surprised absolutely noone here talks about the fact that we have absolutely no idea what the long term consequences of this new tech are. We've all seen people advocating new wonderful technological solutions that fail because of unknown unknowns, in every field. That's just the rules of the R&D game. In that case we're seriously thinking about injecting a new kind of drug to the whole world population based on…

It won't be taken by everyone in the world. There are countless vaccines being developed. The two mRNA based ones were the quickest to fulfil the criteria of their phase three trials. The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine and Sputnik V are based on more conventional methods (adenovirus vector) for example.

Also: the implication of your statement about the "most fragile 1 percent" is that their lives are worth less than others. I cannot begin to describe the disgust I am feeling towards such an inhumane attitude.

Post reply on HN